If you want to get a truly high quality cinematic image that can hold up on the big screen from Canon (without a ton of post work), there currently aren't any options under $6,500. While I think the Canon C100 is actually a better deal than one might think at first glance, it's still well above the price range for many people, especially those who are moving up from cameras like the T2i or T3i -- jumping up to almost $7,000 just might not be realistic. There is still a missing camera in Canon's Cinema EOS line, between $2,000 and $6,500, and there is word it may be coming in a DSLR-type camera.

Keep in mind this is a fairly unreliable rumor at the moment, but I think it's worth a conversation about what people might want in this budget range and this body size. This is from Canon Rumors:

There have been a few mentions of a new Cinema EOS DSLR body being announced in 2013. It would take on a smaller form factor than the EOS-1D C and would not shoot 4K video.

It wasn’t mentioned which DSLR it would be built around, but I think an APS-C Cinema EOS based around the upcoming EOS 7D replacement would be a good place to start.

With the release of the Canon 1D C just around the corner, I think this is an interesting rumor, especially since many believe that camera and the C100 are both overpriced for their capabilities. Canon has a huge hole in their product line to compete with the Blackmagic Cinema Camera from a budget standpoint, so it would not surprise me if Canon was working on something else to slot right in there with better image quality than the 5D Mark III. That camera is still a photography camera first, and what Canon is missing is a camera like the BMCC that compromises on certain aspects but doesn't compromise on image quality.

I think approaching 2013, it makes sense that we will start seeing better image quality from the DSLR form factor than we've seen previously. The 5D Mark II was recently retired from the Canon lineup, and we haven't seen a tremendous improvement in image quality from the DSLRs since that camera came out in 2008. One could argue that it's a case of using the right tool for the job, but as technology gets better, I would think most of us might expect things to trickle down to the lowest end sooner or later.

Canon would be wise to offer a direct competitor to the BMCC, if not in codec quality, at least in similar image quality. If they put it in a Canon 7D sized body -- or even a Mark II/III sized body -- I would hope they don't just port over the still image sensor and the rest of the hardware, because we've seen that Canon can't even come close to matching the image quality of the bigger sized cameras, like the C100/C300/C500, unless they are recording the full resolution of the sensor like the 4K mode on the Canon 1D C. Since it's not likely for a budget camera to have 4K like was mentioned above in the rumor, I would hope this means a possible porting over of the Super 35mm sensor of the larger cameras.

So here's what I would like to see from Canon, which I think would compete very well: remove all the still image capability from a camera the size of the 7D, put the sensor from the bigger Cinema EOS cameras inside, and give it the same codec as the C100. This camera wouldn't have ND filters or an uncompressed HDMI, but if it was priced between $2,000 and $3,000, you'll actually get a lot more people to move up from DSLRs, because spending a few hundred more is an easier pill to swallow than a few thousand. I think that is realistic and it would actually fit into their product category without cannibalizing their higher end too much. It'd be nice to have more, but just like Sony, they have R&D and other considerations to protect. This "Canon C50" could certainly save money on the rest of the internal hardware by only including the bare essentials to make a cinema quality image.

What do you guys think? Is this a camera you'd buy for $2K-$3K? What would you like to see from Canon -- keeping in mind that we're not going to get BMCC codec quality or RAW at that price level in the near future (especially from a company like Canon or Sony)?

Your Comment

Comment *

Leave this field blank

103 Comments

Canon will not risk cutting into the sales of there higher line cameras, they probably will change this philosophy when there stock prices start crashing but as for the short term I don't see much of a game changing product for 2013 maybe in 3 to 4 years.

Unfortunately, the C100 has the specs that I would want to see in this new camera, or at least the specs that I would expect from a new cinema camera at this price point, and it kills me to think of how much further Canon would have to cripple this camera to make it "competitive."

Out of all the speculations a c50 makes most sense if they are trying to compete with the BMCC, definitely. Many would prefer it to a 5D/6D, not only quality-wise, but also due to better handling (let's face it, DSLRs are still photo cameras after all).

Then again, if it is going to be a "7D C" with the original 7D body and an APS-C image sensor but for a higher price point then the 6D, I wouldn't see any reason to pick it up.

Therefore it has to have a full frame sensor, that's for sure. So rather something like a 5D C? What could that offer to step up from the Mk3?

2K motion jpeg sounds lovely , dont know if it would translate to a quality picture advantage on the bigscreen, the 4k compressed motion jpeg is nice but IMO it is just a notch above the image coming from c100, again because it is compressed.

The c300 is an excellant 1080p resolved final image that can hold its own compared to F3 and even compressed RED footage, it will not have the fine details as red, but overall sharpness and picture will be good enough to get on screen without crazy post.

motion 2k jpeg would not be under 4k theorethically if 1dc is 12k

While this rumor sounds nice, doubt it will ever see fruition anytime soon and the reason is because they dont have too.

IM pretty Sure Cannon has multiple lineups and solutions ready at the drop of a dime if competition/price warranted lower cinema cameras, but realistically a fully functional decent firmware THE BLACK MAGIC camera most likely will not be easily available until the end of next year. Canon will not cripple MARK 3 sales or 5d SALES for that matter

For a $2,000 DSLR that happens to have a movie mode, I would expect the following to "get excited":
1) Better quality compression choices and clean HDMI out-- "tougher" HDMI port.
2) Chip closer to Super 35 size with no moire and reduced jello effect
3) More cine style controls (More FPS options, shutter expressed in degrees, 1.78 or 2.35 frameline markers in color, rule of thirds grid, etc)
4) Focus peaking
5) able to adjust audio levels with dedicated knob/controls, headphone monitoring, plus XLR option if desired
6) Timecode
7) Cine style mounting options for baseplate
8) Easier access to change battery (not from the bottom).
There's more I would like, but this is what comes to mind.
So, yes, if there is something around $2,000 that can do at least the top five, than I would buy one (or two).

Joe I don't think your plan can be done. That sensor requires active cooling and the C100 is probably the smallest form factor you can manage for it.

The main reason I have let Canon of the hook was the uncompressed HDMI out on the C100, and the seamless integration with the Ninja 2. That combo is genuinely awesome for the money.

Now the 5D3 is due to get clean HDMI as well. Honestly, I think the 5D3 recorded with a Ninja using Cinestyle is going to be quite competitive with the BMCC recorded in its log gamma to ProRes. The 5D3 will have far less aliasing and moire, better color and low light, full frame look and DOF, flawless Canon lens support, better ergonomics with awesome stills and replaceable batteries (as well as hacks such as ML). The BMCC will have a couple more stops of DR, the ability to shoot RAW if you've got the computer and budget to do so (defeats the purpose of going low budget then) and a copy of Resolve in the tin. I think that's an adequate competitor already in that bracket...real resolution may end up competitive once an anti-aliasing filter is placed in the BMCC.

A 7DC camera using a (different and affordable) crop sensor with proper downsampling, an implementation of Canon Log, and clean uncompressed 422 HDMI out would be an interesting entrant, especially if it had an articulated screen or maybe even an EVF.

But the point of DSLRs is dual use with stills...they aren't designed for movie making after all. People have gotten used to the idea but work with a C100 and its gorgeous ergonomics and you really have no interest in DSLRs anymore, unless they offer something extra such as full-frame look. They might want one of their mirrorless bodies to be given "C" status so as to make something really small as the proverbial "crash cam" (no one on a budget will crash anything more expensive than a GoPro anyway). That would compete with the GH3.

And that's my prediction: the cheap "C" camera is going to be in their mirrorless "M" line with that mount, and it will compete with the GH3 and GoPro and RX100 and NEX-7. They might do a 7DC anyway of some form, and some people may be foolish enough to buy it just based on tradition (they already have all the DSLR rigging etc.). But I am glad I took the plunge and am now using a pro camera in the C100+Ninja 2. The 5D3 will be a nice companion with Cinestyle and clean HDMI and gives me stills.

But, on the other hand, what makes you think that the MK3 is in any way shape or form in the same bracket with or without an external recorder (Which will do next to nothing in exchange for the expense of rigging, etc.). I'd love to

Furthermore, aren't you one of the primary complainers here in regards to having to rig camera a, b, or c?

The C100 truly is crippled without an external recorder. That people like you laugh at that is what made Canon think they could get away with doing this. In a matter of mathematical fact, the C100 recorded to the Atomos Ninja 2 is in every meaningful dimension a superior image to the C300 or even C500 recorded internally. At a fraction of the price. But you have to laugh that off or else Canon wouldn't have allowed it. Canon really did self-cannibalize here...it hasn't sunk in yet and they don't want to let it.

And how often do you, Kohli, shoot without either an external recorder or an external field monitor? The Ninja 2 does both, well enough to use in practice on a budget. An incredible upgrade for $1000. A magic arm is all you need for rigging it, it's self-contained.

Anyway since you made it personal I should say I was coincedentally forwarded your new showreel by a friend. You are good, Kholi, and much better than me if you had primary responsibility for the shots in that reel. I am grateful you contribute here and wish to learn from you. But I think you'll find earning the right to have a Hollywood ego will come quicker with humility than braggadocio.

Hm. You know, you're absolutely right. Although it has nothing to do with Ego, imagine that you have experience in certain areas that's considered extensive and worth hiring, and you want to offer that information to others that you consider your peers--the same level, but you constantly run into some people that are adamant about pushing a certain point of view that's not exactly accurate.

Long story short, it's pretty frustrating, regardless of if it excuses my "snippy" posting tone.

Let's talk about Canon: It has nothing to do with the end user, to be honest. They are a major corporation, they have people that run numbers and statistics. Put aside specs, if you knew you could sell enough people the same thing over and over again, and you had... err, a lot of mouths to feed as a large entity... what would you do?

Keep selling it to them. If you guys want better from Canon then hand your money over to someone else, or don't spend it at all. The C100 isnt' a bad camera, in fact it's great for what it is... until you lay it on a chart or put the footage beside other cameras in a similar bracket. Tiny bit overpriced. But, that's historically Canon. Again, just look at their pedigree, it's all there.

As far as external recorders go: consider it never. Up until Blackmagic was announced I mainly shot EPIC, and before that RED. For small jobs I used 5Ds until the people hiring my company wised-up to the footage and it came back to haunt us. I switched over to GH2 (hack) and never had an issue. So, no, an external recorder has been largely unnecessary for my work. I do own a TV Logic 5.6" that usually rides as a 2nd or third on-board device while shooting.

I HAVE been experimenting with the Hyperdeck SHuttle 2 to record PRoRes simultaneous to RAW on Blackmagic, likely a workflow that I'll use occasionally once I've ironed it out.

Anyway, I should've made a stronger attempt to actually say something instead of just being snippy. You're absolutely right. Not sure what you mean about being responsible for the images on my DP reel... I shoot for living, or well I did before I transitioned into directing.

Well respect to you Kholi. And I understand your point of view. However I think you'd find on further inspection I am obsessed with the credibility of the analysis I post to sites like this and I get my facts as straight and fair as I can. If you can correct me you'll see how fast I will revise my statements and publicly admit my error. I want you or anyone else to correct anything I say that isn't accurate.

It's starting to matter less. Soon we will all have essentially equally capable tools, regardless of budget. But that's not a tragedy. Computer programmers have all had the same dirt-cheap tools for decades...some are billionaires, some are paupers. I think it's worth looking forward to, I want to see what stories any people have to tell, uncompromised.

But this is the last chance we get to pee on each other's cameras. Live it up.

No, I think it's less that I think you're factually incorrect and more along the lines of practically ... slightly off.

Without saying you're wrong, here's what I mean:

1. MK3 has very little moire/aliasing, yet at the expense of detail. EVeryone knows that it pretty much lacks detail, and contrary to popular bloggers belief, you cannot do the impossible and sharpen detail into the image. That's not how it works. When it's gone, it's gone. Even if you apply an OLPF to Blackmagic it's likely to still out-resolve any DSLR on the market. I do believe that the C300 outr-esolves Blackmagic, and likely the C100 (yet to be seen, but it's safe).

2. A couple of stops of DR over the MK3. It's more like three and some change so to speak, and while two stops would be nothing to glance over, three or more is absolutely nothing to scoff at. It will change your entire methodology of shooting. There's no way I would take on a job with say an Epic (And much less a C300 honestly) that wasn't a documentary and not have a decent amount of grip gear and/or lighting. The consensus is that "It's good, but you need more light and grip unlike Alexa". Absolutely true, and that's partially because of the actual DR measurement. Same goes for Blackmagic.

3. RAW computing power. The misconception that you absolutely have to have a new computer is, well, a total misconception and it's perpetuated by people that have little actual working experience with RAW (or near to raw) motion picture acquisition systems. The short of it? You don't cut RAW, you finish from it. Of all the stages that one must go through when using RAW, it's far more relevant to talk about hard drive space for storage and the actual offloading and duplication process of several gigs of data within a short amount of time. Working with it? Nah. Cake, unless you haven't purchased a new computer since 2008 or so. Even then, my old Mac Tower (2009) still burns well.

4. 5D3 Better lowlight? Mn, nah, not really. And while we're at it, let's call it no-light, as that's usually what everyone's referring to. Blackmagic is a more than adequate lowlight tool when paired with your typical fast primes, on up to 2.8's if necessary. Although this is more subjective, lowlight doesn't exclusively refer to noise floor, it also delineates color performance, detail, so on and so forth. The same measures for "lit" apply. In nearly every aspect outside of noise floor the MK3 stumbles. Color being, by far, the one thing that suffers the most on all Canon cameras under lowlit situations, the C300 looking much better than the rest of the line up. Even that's got its own issues. Still, the C300 is mostly the more appropriate no-light tool. Lowlight, well that's... yeah that's subjective too.

So, no, factually I can't remember at the moment anything that you've posted "incorrect", just off in comparison to experience with these tools, all included aside from the C500 in my case.

There's one last thing. I suspect when people actually begin to use the tools with greater dynamic range and flexibility captured at the lens, they'll learn the importance of having that basic freedom when you have very little money to spend on grip and electric. Check Ryan Walter's Cinema Camera buying guide and one of his primary reasons for choose Blackmagic.

It's the one that's going to be the most forgiving when production is not.

Thanks again for sharing your insights Kholi and you are certainly more experienced than I with these tools. I guess one difference is you are shooting with the higher end gear and I'm more obsessed with what I can squeeze out in the under-$10K range. The C100 + Ninja 2 has really opened my eyes to what's available there...I think you will find it's superior to the C300 internally in most respects, and has most of the great ergonomics and build and "no-light" ISO 20K and a real 12 stops of DR at ISO 850 down to a fine and even noise floor. With that rig I'm sure you could do wonders and wouldn't be cursing at the camera all day...though I'd think you'd be more at the Alexa/F55 level budget permitting. I'm under no illusions that the over $20K level is matched by the under $10K level...yet...

Now when you criticize the 5D3 DR, are you accounting for the use of Cinestyle gamma? After shooting multicam with the 5D3 in Neutral 0 -4 -2 0 and the C100 in Canon Log, I was ready to toss the 5D3 for video...but I pulled myself together and tried working with Cinestyle again now I have some experience with log gammas. And it's really not so bad...not the 12 stops of the C100 but at least 10 and no hard clip of the blacks or any but the worst highlights. Salvageable. And with clean uncompressed HDMI coming...

You just posted that RED's DR specs were fantasies. We need an objective testing site that gets us some form of citable, reproducible statistic like DxOMark does for stills. Otherwise the manufacturers can just claim anything they want. And the test in the 5D3's case should be made with Cinestyle...your typical testing facility will only test Standard 0 0 0 0 which no one uses in practice. Marco Solorio's comparison video was done Neutral 0 -4 -2 0 which may have been the indie standard but is unfair to compare with a log gamma when Cinestyle is available for free download.

I am very eager to see what a BMCC resolves with an OLPF. I think it's benefitting right now in the test shots from some false sharpness effect of aliasing. That gets old quick. My prediction is BMCC with an OLPF that reduces the aliasing to 5D3 levels will resolve the same number of 1080p pixels as the 5D3 + Ninja 2. I hope someone does the test...and I'd like to see whether they've figured out how to suppress false color when they do it.

As for RAW workflow...you mentioned adding a Hyperdeck to the BMCC so you can get parallel ProRes. So it wants an external recorder anyway, and add that to the rigging along with an external battery, EVF, field monitor, and a tidy stack of SSDs to feed both devices with and a big RAID array to hold the project... Not shocking to you having worked with RED for years but these are relative amateurs looking at this camera. I think it's better to stress to them getting the right white balance and exposure on-set...direct to ProRes should be fine enough for that level.

Anyway thank you for contributing your wisdom Kholi and we'll see whether the BMCC lives up to the hypewave or is just a big and heavy GoPro with a terrific cult marketing plan. =) Canon on the other hand will continue to make things that just work and result in few tears at the end of the day. And on these sites no good deed goes unpunished.

Should've explained further: The Hyperdeck shuttle isn't necessary, it's something that I want to have to check dailies immediately when I'm shooting alone, without a data wrangler, and want to make sure I have what I need. I'll likely be one of the very very few people using an external recorder with Blackmagic.

It's an extra that's un-needed, one that you only need one cheap SSD for. 120GB would get me through a good day and a half of constant shooting on the Hyperdeck.

Thanks for having this discussion in a public forum instead of via private messaging, Peter and Kholi. There is a lot of good information that a lot of us can benefit from. We shot our first feature in 2009 on RED Ones, but have been building toward a multiple 7D kit for personal use over the past year (smaller feature projects and commercial projects --I think we would still rent higher end cameras for larger budget projects). However, we are now eagerly awaiting our BMCC. There just doesn't seem to be anything even remotely close in the $3k range (and bumping up to more than $6,500 can't be considered the same category). I'd love it if they could cram a larger sensor in a 7D body, keep that sensor cool, and utilize a better codec, but I just don't see all of those things happening. So for a narrative filmmaker working in a non-run-and-gun setting, there is simply no competition for what the BMCC currently offers (though I'm sure that will change quickly, as it always does).

The $6500 option may be a whole lot cheaper than the $3000 one when it's all said and done, and I don't know anyone claiming the BMCC is better for run-n-gun work than the C100. That's the C100's forte...Run handheld with no rig no mattebox nothing from a dark unlit room out into direct sun, losing only a few frames as the built-in 6 stop ND snaps down behind the built-in IR filter and you move from ISO 20K to ISO 850 and/or hit Auto-Iris and ramp any EF lens (not only the declicked manuals) down smoothly. A touch of NR in post for the dark segment and you have all your highlights and blacks unclipped. And you can do that all day long on $200 worth of commodity batteries and media.

I don't work for Canon, don't know anyone who does, don't have any affiliation with anyone that stands to benefit from my recommendations at all, don't even put up B&H affiliate links or have a blog! I just think marketing has gone a bit too far on this Blackmagic thing, but coming to grips with it and the resulting discussion is teaching me a lot.

I don't completely understand the argument of the c100 not needing a rig. Because it has built in NDs and a handle? Couldn't any other camera be essentially the same then with a vari-ND filter on the lens and an after market handle? And then once you add an external recorder to the C100, and if you want to throw it on your shoulder, you'll need an EVF. Seems like it needs to be kitted out like any other camera.

I do have the Zacuto EVF and a lot of other rigging that I already had before getting the C100. If you want to put anything on your shoulder then yes that implies rigging for all cameras that don't have the ENG-style integrated shoulder mount. The nice thing about the C100 is you don't need any of it...shooting handheld even with the poor onboard EVF is quite feasible, it's light enough even with a big lens to hold in your hands for extended shooting, and there are included top and side handles that really work well and offer start/stop control with the side handle has aperture and joystick controls so you don't need to let go of it or the focus ring to make adjustments. There are also built-in P48 XLR preamps and mics, an articulating screen, an onboard replaceable battery that lasts for hours, two redundant SDXC slots for safe internal recording at decent quality, as well as the built-in IR and 2/4/6 stop ND filters. The BMCC has none of those qualities and all must be addressed somehow in practice before you are ready to shoot.

The lack of internal ND filters is especially a problem for the BMCC, because of its tiny sensor. EXT DAY shots tend to be wide, so you can establish a location or take advantage of the scenery etc. And the lenses that can get that wide for the 2.3 FOVCF sensor tend to not allow screw-in vari-ND filters at all...you can't even make your own vari-ND using two Cpols in a matte box because the matte box might not be wide enough either. And vari-NDs are double polarizers and tend to make people look flat, wrecking the highlights on their skin. They can also have bad color shifts and gradients and you either have to buy many of the screw-on ones or have at least two things (plus any step-up rings) to change every time you are changing lenses. I have some cheaper vari-NDs but never use them.

Really though, there is no comparison between the C100 and BMCC ergonomically. I predict typical C100 days will be able to do twice as many setups as BMCC days, not only because of ergonomics but also low-light performance. The savings of $3500 on the body is already drowned out from the rigging requirements, but when you slow down an entire production crew costing $thousands/day because you are struggling to reconfigure the camera, the real cost differential becomes laughable.

However, I've shot with both C300 and Blackmagic at this point, the latter in both a crewed situation and a run n'gun, just me switching Zeiss primes, IR NDs out, etc. Eight pages, two days, a hatchback "lighting kit" if you could even call it that and a PA to help move a total of three available c-stands and bags.

No other crew/gear.

You are exaggerating in a very imaginative way the benefits of built-in NDs, rigging, etc. You aren't saving much more than one or two seconds per setup and that's ONLY if you have to switch NDs.

Once the camera is rigged, it's rigged. That's it. A threaded ND change is a mere matter of four to five seconds and once the ND is on it's done for most of the following setups until you switch lenses, IF you switch lenses.

So, I get why you're grossly exaggerating this, you haven't used it or many other systems yet to measure by and that's all well and good. I can understand that. From working experience, just to let you know, you're way off base.

As far as rigging costs go (no shoulder mount setup, just handheld) you're likely to spend about 1,200 to 1,500 if you don't own a monitor already, and if you're only shooting ProRes tack on another 200.00 for two 120GB ssds (2+ Hours of ProRes each).

Even rounded up you're looking at 4,700 to shoot ProRes with an option of RAW at any moment you wish.

Last point: Sorry, but the Tokina 11-16/2.8 takes 77mm NDs and the 11 end is plenty wide for ninety nine percent of productions today. IT's equivalent to an 18mm S35, which is generally the widest lens in a Cinema Prime set to begin with. There's not a single issue with getting wide shots with the camera, again, speaking from experience.

"The $6500 option may be a whole lot cheaper than the $3000 one when it’s all said and done, and I don’t know anyone claiming the BMCC is better for run-n-gun work than the C100." You seem to have misread my response, Peter. I said, NON-run-n-gun. My point was I wouldn't try to use the BMCC for run and gun and that it should in fact be considered a camera for making films in a more controlled environment. This speaks to a lot of your following comments (by the way, TO THE WEBMASTER, it's INCREDIBLY annoying that the "reply" link disappears after just a few responses). And I *certainly* don't think that it's unrealistic for someone using the BMCC to be utilizing more "pro lights" than a chinese LED as you suggest. We've spent a lot of time and money purchasing tools that I'd rather not throw out because they no longer work with the current camera body (which is more a problem with RED). I love that we can utilize almost ALL of our toys with the BMCC. We don't need to spend anywhere near the extra $6500 you suggest tricking out the BMCC to get to a similar place. Other than a battery pack, we can literally start filming at $3k (luckily we already had a couple extra SSD's lying around).

Yes sorry Jonas it apparently was too many three letter "un/on" words in a row for my feeble mind to process.

Though I ask, why should your choice of camera dictate your method of shooting? When it doesn't need to?

I am glad you can re-up your rigging and kit with a smaller sensor and heavier camera. If you order the EF version now, maybe April I understand. The passive MFT who knows...maybe by then it will be an active MFT and support more than the four Voight/slr magic manual MFT lenses. Or maybe their 4K S35 sensor version 2 will already be announced at NAB and the MFT concept canceled completely and we'll all wait another year only for that to be canceled at the next NAB for the 6K full frame 240fps 3D version.

Fish in a barrel sorry.

The *real* BMCC hacker-type fans should be cheering such realism on, getting everyone reading to cancel their preorders so they can skip forward in line and get to see how many EF lenses have iris control so far. ;-)

Actually, the whole ND thing... the comparison would be like saying you'll lose a ton of time when you have to switch batteries on the C100 because the camera must be powered down for a few seconds, where with Blackmagic as long as you've got more than one battery you NEVER have to shut the camera down. EVER.

Thus saving you a ton of time and money. I would be silly to say something like that, which is why I don't. A battery change on a C100/C300 isn't even a consideration on time. Although it's great to never have to shut down the camera during setup or shooting, it's also not a big deal with these cameras. Can't say the same for Epic or Scarlet, though.

I forgot to comment on lowlight, or actually I didn't I just skipped it because we've been there... but again, lowlight and no light are two completely different scenarios. COMPLETELY. No Light = I'm shooting under the moon with just a lite panel.

Extreme Low Light = I can run a 1K Open face and I've got two lite panels.

Low Light = I can run an M18, I've also got a 1K Fresnel and Two Lite Panels.

The very last situation is the most common, even if people can't afford to rent an M18. Just trade that out for any suitcase lighting setup.

So in the No Light situation, I likely would not bring Blackmagic without an 0.95, and that would still be pushing it. In either of the other two, you aren't saving any more time with a C100. I've shot under street lamps with Blackmagic, and while the C100/C300 will be cleaner and actually likely more detailed, they both suffer in a massive way on the Color Front under lowlight situations, especially Sodium Vapor or High Powered CFL Street Lamps. Blackmagic trumps hands down in this area.

Kholi with all due respect it's pretty hilarious to say M18 and BMCC in the same breath. The typical BMCC customer may have a couple Lowel lights or Kino's or even just Chinese LED panels. I know you're trying to edify the new camera by putting it in a professional light (haha) but it's a hobbyist/enthusiast level device and the fact they've corralled a few pro's sadly with enough free time to market it to the unsuspecting hobbyist doesn't mean a production that takes itself that seriously isn't going to just hand it to the BTS kid and bet the project on something more mature.

The C100/C300 is not the camera that suffers in color in low light. You are confusing them with the FS100/FS700 which do, terribly. The color performance of the Canons remains absolutely unchanged through ISO 20000. The noise floor comes up and the DR down, and when recorded externally the noise renders to perfectly even multicolored snow. It's a terrific sensor and beats the lower end Sony's in that department handily. There are several comparison videos on vimeo if you don't believe me.

If you would prefer to fiddle and struggle with your (free?) BMCC, please be my guest. For unassisted shooting the C100 is a dream cam, and just because it does have superior run-n-gun does not mean it's inferior for well-lit narrative work.

Although I see this as a bait to take off the gloves, still... no, you're way off.

If you re-read what I wrote, I said specifically to replace the M18 with your lighting kit. The point was G&E to support an M18, which means you could run your Lowell Kit or especially Kinos. In fact, I ran with a Single 4x4 Kino on the short film and it was plenty of light, on top of a 1K chimera.

Also, a professional tool is the tool a professional chooses. Period. As a "working" professional, where this is my only source of survival, that is always a fact that novice or hobbyist fail to realize. A professional makes the tool, not the other way around. You use the camera for what you want to use it for. There's no need to discuss that point any further, really. Either you get it or you don't.

I'm not confusing anything. I've got experience with the C300 and the color is terrible in extreme low light. Whether you agree or not is a different story. All in all, I don't think the C100 or C300 have very good colorimetry to begin with.

I actually do not own a Blackmagic right now, I borrow until my camera ships. On the flipside, you've never used one and you're commenting as if you actually understand the tool from a working perspective.

You stated that you were about facts, yet you've shown that you discard the fact that you don't know enough to comment from an experienced point of view altogether. Oh, and the little fact of me actually owning the camera.

I think you're definitely oversimplifying ND swaps. 99 percent of black magic owners will not be on cine glass. So that means different lengths and front lens thread sizes for most lenses. In your cases who is cleaning the nd's for dust and finger prints before going into the matte box. Are you going to have a a ND set for all your different lens sizes if you are just going to thread them on the front, If its a matte box, and you're using IRND what apparatus is being used to kill reflection, does that apparatus fit every lens. Won't you have to adjust the matte box on the rail support for different lens lengths. These were my problems on RED and I assume they will be the same on Black magic. I don't believe that its as simple as if its rigged its rigged at least not on photography glass. 4 to 5 seconds, is more like 4 to 5 minutes if you don't have a dedicated camera op or PA.

I think that one place that Peter and I agree is that if you have a minimal crew scarce resources, then the c100 is a better choice. Simply put, you will do more set ups and get close to the same quality as 10 bit prores. No budget guys wont be touching raw anyway. If you have a crew, especially with someone to manage camera, and you can handle the variable cost of storage then the BMC is fantastic. Though I believe you are, not everybody whose getting the camera is in the second boat.

I dont' shoot with a mattebox unless I absolutely have to. Never. I would rather use paper tape and black wrap. That means I don't use a Mattebox on Blackmagic, either.

I'd love to know what percentage of SLR glass users do not already have Step up Rings for their entire set of SLR lenses? The filter thread size is a moot point.

Again, you guys are speculating, none of these issues that you're trying to make a case of actually make a difference in real world shooting scenarios. Unless you're just very green in general, which would make a lot more sense.

Even shooting with a 35lb RED MX by myself for the majority of 2010 and 2011... can't agree with you.

It sucks to say this, but it's similar to arguing with someone about why you're better off shooting a sub 50K feature film over a 100-150K feature film. Either you know why or you don't. At this point, it's not worth continuing.

I've said the C100 is likely good for what it is, and the users that want to use it. I extrapolate my knowledge from using the C300, the better overall version of the C100. There's no reason to link me to a video comparison of two cameras with very poor color. =T I've worked with even digital to know what to look for and why it matters.

NOW you ask a pretty solid question though: I can definitely use any digital system I want just about, with the Alexa being a little more difficult to get for a day or two to play with due to demand and popularity. I don't have to shoot Blackmagic, I could just shoot Epic. It's a choice I make.

The reason I bother to respond to post like these? Silly as it may sound, it bothers me that somewhere out there someone's reading what you're saying and assuming that you have the experience to back up your claims, and they'll go back to repeat that to someone else, so on and so forth.

What we have now are more ignorant leading the ignorant. That translates to more horrible content.

I said earlier that I see everyone as my peer, and I'm still learning a ton as well. Although it's not my responsibility to try and help other filmmakers, I feel that some people aren't as fortunate as I am and I want to share my knowledge with them so that they feel empowered to do one thing:

shoot great material.

However, it's tiresome.... like trying to clean a floor with a dirty mop.

"you’ll lose a ton of time when you have to switch batteries on the C100 because the camera must be powered down for a few seconds, where with Blackmagic as long as you’ve got more than one battery you NEVER have to shut the camera down. EVER."

I just confirmed that with the C100's 8.4V input jack you can hotswap batteries without shutting the camera down at all. The AC adapter is included but I also used a commodity 9V supply (not one of those little 9V batteries you get in the supermarket, a 9V DC li-ion supply) to do the hot swap successfully. No problem at all.

If there's anything the BMCC can do the C100 can't ergonomically I'd be interested to learn it. Yeah yeah I know it can record RAW. But the C100, for its few flaws (EVF, internal format, no slo-mo) is a design masterpiece. I can't imagine anyone weeping into their beer for being asked to shoot *anything* on one, nor can I imagine anyone remotely familiar with camera operation screwing up a take with one.

And btw I've just read that Eye-fi cards work in the C100 to transfer the internal format (in parallel to it being recorded on the other SD slot) to a laptop in the video village for review wirelessly. Without interrupting further recording. Noice. Dream cam.

Peter, noone in a working environment would ever take the time to plug in an AC adapter just to keep the camera on. Sorry, again, real working experience with cameras is a lot different than imagining how they work.

C100 battery should last a good hour and a half or two of continuous shooting. It takes five seconds to switch the battery, three to five for the camera to boot up. It's of no consequence or concern, similar to how five seconds unscrewing an ND from a lens and screwing it onto another one is of no consequence.

Also, the eye-fi setup is completely unusable for anything serious thanks to lag.

If you read back I did do it with an external 9V li-ion battery, not the AC power supply. And for e.g. event shooting being able to hot swap both the battery and SD cards is important to not lose frames if you are running out. Canon made that work. The C100 can record continuously indefinitely as long as media and batteries are refreshed somehow.

And if you want low-lag wireless to the video village, the Gefen wireless HDMI adapter works fine, sending everything but the record start/stop control in realtime in the same uncompressed 422 quality.

Correction: I got bad info on the Gefen wireless apparently it does apply a codec when sending wirelessly. Sorry about that overstatement...but it is low-lag wireless and good enough for remote review. You have the receiver within 30 feet of the camera and run a coax back to the village from there. You will still want the external recorder on the camera for best recording quality.

I don't think Canon need to, if they do come out with something in 2013 it won't be a big quality boost for video in a DSLR format. It may be a baby to the C100 say a barebones C50 shooting prores on a similar sensor size to the BMC & GH3 or even a new APS-C sensor with bayer filtering. Which they could then further develop into their stills cameras the following year.

There's a big difference between what I'd like from Canon and what they can deliver.

Whatever Canon do, if the BMCC EF is a big success I can see a larger sensor camera from them before the end of 2013 or beginning 2014. That's when it will really put the wind up Canon.

As far as stills go I can always keep my 60D for that. The big sell is being able to use my EF-S & EF lenses on both cameras. The BMCC fills that gap nicely.

just want to add, there is a market for a high quality stealth camera. Thats about the best reason to develop a smaller DSLR format camera. Something you can shoot hand held that doesn't need perfect lighting and has high dynamic range for post.

Rather than Canon (or any of the other commies)coming out with newer cameras why don't they just try something like what RED does and that's simply improving on the freaking cameras that you have. Cano has had a chance to totally own this market, and it doesn't seem they listen to their customers. Correction, I believe they are stuck in Hollywood listening to them.Speaking of RED, they have three cameras (RED ONE MX, EPIC & SCARLET). Instead of them building all of this other BS and feeding it to people they constantly improve on their products. They don't release new cameras and continue to piss all over their customers for the sake of the almighty green. When I purchased my c300 I was on the fence with it and the SCARLET. Same price, their both computers, yet Canon only gives us 720p 60fps. Come on Canon it's a damn computer, and they say it can't be done. Well what do you know, a company we all know (GoPro) comes out with a camera that has 4K (really only for time lapse), 2K, 1080 60fps, and 720p 120fps yet Canon says they can't do this in the c300? Is it me, or do I need to pull my pants down some more. Next they unveil the c500 with a lot of the features they should have just put in the c300. Now their offering $3,000 off the c500 for "registered" owners of the c300. I just got my camera in May 2012, and in order for me to get those features I gotta shell out another $21K.
Playing devils advocate why didn't I just get a RED, or another camera? Well I've been a "Canon loyalists" since the XL1, XL1s,XL2,XL H1, Canon 7D, 5D Mark II, and now the c300. Although I've been possibly considering the c500, it looks like change is coming. Does anyone else agree with me about Canon? My comment to them would be to improve your C series thru firmware updates (LIKE RED!) and stop pushing out all of these hype machines.

How will it compete with the BMCC if the specs will have to be lower than Canon's other products already released? This camera will not be 12bit 444 like a BMC to compete. It wont even be 10bit 422.
They should just upgrade the 5DIII.

NIKON also has a rumor of a new DSLR: a D800 body with a D4 sensor.
I'm investing my interest with them.

It will compete because raw specs aren't everything for everyone in every situation, and the Blackmagic Cinema Camera has a lot of things that keep it from being completely usable on day 1 for all sorts of situations.

I like what Nikon has done, but everything under the D800 has had softer video, so I don't have high hopes for that rumored Nikon camera.

Furthermore, the RAW feature and high dynamic range of the BMCC come at the price of a small sensor which will make it hard to shoot with a shallow DoF and will probably not be the best choice for low light situations.

If Canon puts out a proper full frame camera at the same price point, they won't need RAW to be able to compete. At least not for now, depends on what everyone else does and how successful the BMCC will be after the launch hype is gone.

People have been shooting movies on 500 speed film in no light situations forever, and the BMCC at 1600 ISO, which is two stops faster and better in shadow dynamic range, is still fairly clean. You're going to need some lights for many situations, no one doubts that, but with a fast lens you're going to be shoot in plenty of low-light situations.

Having coming from loving the full-frame look, and shooting on 35mm adapters for years, I'm glad that we don't need them anymore for a cinematic image. It's unbelievably stressful keeping anything in focus on full-frame at wide open apertures. It's an interesting look, but a full-frame 35mm sensor is more useful for its light gathering abilities. You can get shallow with the BMCC - no you're not going to get just one eye in focus unless you're using a very long lens - but that look doesn't necessarily improve the image. It's a stylistic choice that can work for certain pieces, but I actually think more people would be better off shooting on a BMCC sized sensor (which is only the tiniest bit smaller than the GH2/GH3), than needing an amazing focus puller for full-frame.

How many more cinema cameras are Canon going to release? A new model every month? They have been shipping cinema cameras for only 9 months and they already have four different models. Now we see the first rumours of yet another camera. This is ridiculous and all part of a deliberate strategy to segment and stratify the market into different 'price points' and confuse people about the real value of what they are selling.

Canon has no interest in competing with Blackmagic. It's very simple to trace their history and to extrapolate from that. If there's a C50--or whatever it's going to be, you can expect C100 imagery somehow "adjusted" to fit the sliding scale.

They've shown everyone exactly what they think specific features and image quality should cost. They have a RAW camera, it's called the C500. They have their FS700 competitor, it's the C300. And their Fs100 "answer' is the C100.

Kholi,
Unfortunately, I don't think the Canon c300 can compete with the Sony FS700 with their higher FPS. Now from what I've seen and heard the FS700 isn't that good other than the ability to shoot at a higher frame rate. They kill Canon by their half price on the camera however.

For sure Canon is watching this thread and taking note off all your wishes and speculations, and after having a good lough they will then build them into, lets say a C700, at a price point of about twice the C500 or more.
The 7D markII will probably be another accumulation of compromises, I have owned the 5D2 for a long time and recently bought the T3i because I needed the 3x zoom function (as I am no sports photographer with the need of shooting a bunch of raws per sec I would not see any reason to spend money on a 60D or 7D).
If you'd strip the T3i off all the consumer nonsense and presets that can only be used to confuse people and will almost certainly ruin any attempt of getting a decent image, you are actually left with a very useful camera that in many ways even feels like an upgrade to the 5d2 (built in slave flash control, dedicated video mode, 60 fps, etc...)
The 7dII will almost certainly not be shipped with a better codec, nor shoot 4k as in my opinion Canon is still struggling to get this to work on their more overpriced models. One thing Canon could do, to at least retain some respect in my eyes, is to give this new DSLR something like 60fps at 1080p (why not 120 fps once we are at it...), since sadly (or ridiculously) non of their other cameras can do it would not take away market share of their products with higher profit margins and would at least include some of the features the competition has yet included a long while back. Lets face it, if it wasn't for the lenses I already own and Sony's rather incompatible style A and E mounts and the community driven improvements like Magic Lantern I would not even consider Canon for the future, I always have the feeling they landed the 5d2 success by mistake and since then their efforts have been directed into regaining a market where you can only get less for more, very disappointing in general. It feels as if the where fooling consumers and ripping off professionals

Jeremy, Canon should just put out a stellar firmware update on the c300 and include 2K, 1080p 60,120 and 300 FPS. Chances are it won't happen because of greed and the tap dancing they will continue to feed us.

Come on Nikon, this is your chance!! no competing with your own products (strictly video wise) Give us a 10bit 2K or 4:4:4. Isn't that what we really need? just a bit more play in the grading department? As long as its sharp!

I think Canon's model is more based on spending brackets than on the actual consumers. X amount of people are happy to spend $30K on a camera. Y amount are happy to spend $16K. Z amount of people are happy to spend $7K. Then there's all those people, plus the amateurs, who would look at a $2-3K expense as a the kind of expense they can afford to "splurge" on.

Considering Canon knows they've got a large following of DSLR owners who are using them for film and video purposes, I'd say they know that there's scope to release a 5D/7D C series model, and know that if it's got just a few video improvements, that it will sell to enough people to make it worthwhile. A C100 sensor (or something comparable that resolves at a better rate than current DSLR sensors), with a H.265 codec, with readily accessible video features, should easily fetch $2-3K.

Doesn't effect their C100 sales since it doesn't include any kind of audio input or HDMI output, but it should still give a much better video than a basic DSLR.

On a tangentially related note, I think Canon really needs to step-up use of their EF-M lens mount.
In theory it should be every bit as pervasive and useful as either Micro Four Thirds or Sony's E mount, but Canon just hasn't used it outside of the EOS M. What's stopping them from outfitting their C cameras with it, especially provided there's a readily available EF adapter? Add in an official PL mount adapter, and it makes it that much more attractive.
If this new C-line camera does exist, it will have to compete with the likes of the GH3; I'd only consider a $2-3000 C camera over the GH3 if it had the EF-M mount (w/ adapter), the great image quality in the realm of the C100, all the video-optimized software from the 5D Mk. III (audio meters, codec options, etc.), a freaking head phone jack, and focus peaking. HDMI recording of 422 would also be nice, but knowing Canon, it's unlikely to trickle down that low.
The more Canon gives people a reason to buy a product with the EF-M mount, the more community response and support there will be. It's the the third-party support of MFT and E Mount that makes them as adaptable as they are.

It sounds like just another example of how Canon like their shareholders a lot, and don't like their customers at all. I'm getting to the point where the feeling's mutual and I've lost trust in the brand, so much that when i was looking for an affordable ENG camcorder with genlock the other day I struck the XF105 off the list on the basis of the brand name alone.

Canon is going to have to adapt to start keeping up, when the 5d mkii came out what other cameras were using EF lenses? Now we have BMC, RED, Ikonoscope? etc With more and more companies jumping on the dslr wake by the month all with better features at less and less cost If a DSLR maker such as Sony or Nikon switched or designed interchangeable mounts like the RED's where would that leave Canon? In a position where we can all take our EF lenses and jump onto another platform NAB this yr could get pretty interesting!

Especially if we see someone like Nikon start using android as an os, we'll be able to install to whatever codec, peaking etc we could want! Imagine what magic lantern could do with that? Compression algorithm's 4k via HDMI out if not in camera etc etc

I think this camera would compete pretty nicely with the BMC, if it has eos c series color and dynamic range, with waveforms then it would be pretty cool. It wouldn't effect c100 sales even with a uncompressed out, because I'm sure it would have dslr rolling shutter and no xlr or onboard NDs, You literally cannot put a price tag on onboard NDs.

What I don't get about the BMC, is what do no budget enthusiasts intend to do with it? They are not going to do a RAW workflow, The files sizes will bury someone who is not prepared for it. Even if you intend on deleting RAW masters after the grade, you still need space for it up front, Which on a multiple day shoot could be 6-10 terabytes, plus you'll need to transcode proxies for the edit, reconform, and then after grading encode masters. This workflow is fine for people who are used to budgeted productions, but most people coming from dslr are not. If you don't do intensive grades with power windows tracking and secondaries and you usually use magic bullet, all that RAW data will go to waste anyway. So enthusiasts are probably going to be filming in prores, but simply put, you will be able to work faster and easier on other cameras and get similar results.

Don't get me wrong this camera will do work, but not for the no budget man. Only people who can sustain the variable cost of operating this camera will really reap its real benefits. I know some are in this boat, but I believe the most vocal people about this camera are not. I canceled my BMC order last night from B&H. For me, image quality comes second to being able to use the camera in more situations. I have a RED but don't use it for everyday projects, because it needs to be built up, it needs mattebox and nds for outside, and I can't get real time playback during a grade. The quality is immaculate and its taught me tons about exposure and camera operation, but it is not necessary when I'm just trying to explore and learn cinematography, its actually a burden in that respect. Though the BMC will not be equally cumbersome, it shares all the same build and recording option issues and will be a hinderance as well.

Really as I ponder what Grant Petty was doing with the camera project, it's clear it's always been all about Resolve. That is the cornerstone here. The experimental camera is just an enabling technology to get more people able and willing to work in Resolve.

For instance, I know you like to get white balance perfect in-camera. You can't do that on the current BMCC. In the UI videos I've seen, they only have 4 basic choices. The intention is to get you to white balance in Resolve. RAW of course is about Resolve, but they're making you do it in ProRes too. And by including it in the box they are making dead certain you don't miss the point.

Grant Petty was a colorist he said in an interview before he started the company. "Fix it in post" is natural for him and having the image perfect straight out of camera is a distinct non-goal.

Will that cripple or empower the budding cinematographer? Certainly the post skills and capability of the BMCC customer will be forced to improve. But what about the capture skills? If you don't have anything vaguely like correct color on-set, how do you work with your gaffer to make magic in the optical realm? Ah, leave it all to post? Post should be about taking something great and making it incredible. Rescuing inartful capture may be heroic but it should be the exception. And in those grab & go situations that may justify sloppy capture, the BMCC will be a very clumsy choice compared to even the typical DSLR.

"Post should be about taking something great and making it incredible."

Absolutely. How many times on set have I heard my Cinematographer chastise a person for saying "we'll fix it in post." That is practically the same thing as saying, "Please punch me in the neck."

"And in those grab & go situations that may justify sloppy capture, the BMCC will be a very clumsy choice compared to even the typical DSLR." I am not convinced that the BMCC is ever the right choice for a "grab and go/run-n-gun" situation. It seems like the BMCC is a budget solution for a more set-driven controlled environment (people interested in making movies in a more "traditional" way, but with a much, much smaller budget than would have previously been needed). We are eagerly awaiting our BMCC, and I'm hoping we can get good, balanced capture from a fairly controlled (well lit) set, so there's not an exorbitant amount of time spent "correcting" things in post (I'd rather dedicate time to the edit and sound). I guess we'll find out soon.

"Even if you intend on deleting RAW masters after the grade, you still need space for it up front, Which on a multiple day shoot could be 6-10 terabytes"

6 TB is only *two* drives.

And even if you're going to be more practical, I think it's fairly realistic to think a person can cobble together a decent editing RAID (which would allow you to work directly with RAW in Premier --no proxies) for well under $5k. Even two G-Tech es Pro units running 8TB in RAID 5 were under $5k (with card) and offer up transfer speeds of 800MB/sec. Perhaps this is still "out of budget" for entry level shooters, but if people are purchasing a $3k camera, I would think they would need to be considering storage at this level, regardless (which is to say "budget enthusiasts" probably wouldn't be using a BMCC).

Regarding the RED, you write: "I can’t get real time playback during a grade." It seems like it would be well worth your time to invest in better/faster storage instead of thinking about more/newer cameras... totally NOT being snarky, just offering advice from experience. When I first started this, I thought I could "get by" with consumer level storage (meaning bare drives) for editing. I *quickly* realized how wrong I was.

thanks for the response, I've asked this question before and heard nothing from the BMCers. I was being conservative in that assessment. I know I don't want to delete masters and I'm sure you don't want to either. My point was that the BMC is going to bury the unprepared in storage. I fear that those who call it a 3k camera and do not include the variable costs when comparing it to other cameras might be setting themselves up for a big headache.

well, if you shoot RAW maybe. But shooting in 10 bit Prores 4:2:2 is still pretty awesome, and more than manageable for storage. In fact, it could be more storage friendly than shooting with a 5dii since I keep my originals, and then transcode to prores for editing. So now I have two versions of the original footage to store.

But this would be to say that RAW is the only option with BMCC and that one *must* keep the RAW data and would be penalized as a result (vs. considering it an advantage, which I do). If you're after RAW, this is the only camera (certainly in this price range) even offering the option. If you don't want RAW (and the storage problems that come with it), you can either shoot ProRes or convert the RAW footage to a smaller, compressed, but still superior to H.264 format. I don't think RAW should be considered a downside to the camera, and certainly is not something that can't be overcome (by simply converting to a different format) for those not wanting to deal with the required storage capacity.

While this is true and I appreciate the sentiment, I do like that I FINALLY have the option to shoot nice, uncompressed footage with an affordable camera (the BMCC). Canon STILL isn't offering that (I love Canon, but they're making it REALLY hard to say loyal).

All they have to do make the next model of EOS-M that they release to match all the video specs of a gh3: 60fps at 1080p, a variety codecs with bit-rates that are 50mbps or higher, unlimited record time, headphone/mic jack, little to no moire/alias, more detailed image, clean HDMI out, and a bigger camera body that will be more evenly balanced when adapting EF lenses. Throw in focus peaking and sell it the camera for around 1200-1500.00 and you have a camera that is a nice bridge between their dslrs and cinema camcorders.

Doesn't it feel like Canon is doing everything to hold you off from that BMCC every time the latter makes an announcement? First it was the Uncompressed firmware for the 5D3, next year in April. Now this imaginary camera that will be so budget friendly. I think as a budget shooter, wisdom lies in not counting on Canon to make anything more affordable. 5D2 was a mistake, they didn't intend to make filming that cheap.

Companies are trying to take advantage of BMCC's delays and current non-delivery. It's very possible that competitors are paper tigers and have nothing in the can except jejune words: "We might announce at NAB a possible alternative to the BMCC that we are considering organizing preliminary feasibility drafts and implementation timetable for a similar budget cinema camera with consumer-requested features, and pending device will be delivered immediate after the first round of projected production."

None of the other companies have squat similar to BMCC in that price range now and likely in 2013, but of course the stiffs have to speak up and use rumor and fanboy sites such as NFS and plant their moles in the comments. Nevertheless, BMCC better get in the homestretch soon.

I agree, but I'd better receive my BMCC soon, or I'm gonna be REALLY pissed when these "better" cameras start hitting the market and I'm totally PENALIZED for having paid for my BMCC a full freaking year ago. [wink]

Such a camera Is something Canon should release ASAP.
I disagree with some of the initial suggestions though, it should have clean HDMI out and it should be able to take stills too, however the sensor choice should be focused on video and not stills.

It should have a resolution as good as the C100, no aliasing issues and come with a very decent codec.
It should also do at least 50 fps in full HD.
Raw acquisition should be possible through HDMI:

Given that a suped up, hacked and fairly cheap GH2 captured better video than a 5D mark II, Canon will have to really improve their line of cinema oriented DSLR's. If Blackmagic can do it at $3,000... and include expensive image software in the bundle, it will have to meet or beat BLD's camera in all categories.

They might be able to pull it off since it looks like the currently unhacked GH3 from Panasonic has gone cheap with a Sony-based sensor with slightly less detail and moire/alaising issues in order to increase dynamic range and low light capabilities rather than improve their in-house multi-aspect sensor. A step back in image quality even as the body construction improves... when they should have gone head to head with BMD at a lower price point in pure video quality.

I would like to see a version geared towards video - and not using the DSLR camera format, but more a traditional camcorder. I also think that it should have ND filters - I don't really understand why this is such a problem! Also, an optional XLR attachment. I know this goes against the grain of many, but I would not mind if it had a fixed lens so long as it covered a good range with a low/bright aperture setting. Maybe there could be two versions - one with a fixed lens and another with changeable lens mounts. Anyway, just a few quick thoughts!

I'd love to see a large sensor body from Canon that takes EF lenses but retains AF. Such cameras used to be standard fare for Canon but no longer. I realise that MF is the way to go for many situations but for some instances (wildlife, fast sports etc) AF is just so useful.

At my first impressions ,I agree with your idea, but isn’t it better to have a good hybrid camera which can shoot 2k at a price range of 4000 pound.I think Canon should make an EOS with 2k recording and EF mount which will cost the above mentioned price.Because every year new format and better cameras are introduced. so according to me it would be better idea to spend a little bit more to have a 2k camera which will help you to stand up with time. please visit www.visakhleelagopinath.com to read my article

I've seen it but I'm a Canon stills shooter and have a heavy investment in Canon glass so I'm looking for a Canon product with EF mount. Something like an modern day XL1. I also agree with Gary regarding the quality of the output from the Sony.

I would like to see a headphone jack, an override for the automatic gain control, 2 SD card slots and allow automatic switching from one card to the other, interchangeable lenses, full frame sensor with less or no moire problems, cinema style lenses (won't get that one I know), clean HDMI out and built in 2, 4 and 8 stops of ND. Of course none of the overheating problems of the T2i (that problem I think they've already solved in their newer cameras) oh and native ProRes recording..

I've never found much appeal in a bigger than APS-C sensor in A HD format.
If that camera will not give is 4K I don't really see the point for bigger than APS and remember that 35mm film is much nearer to APS than FF.

Anyway. I've already seen a presentation of BMCC and let me tell you that after seeing what a RAW codec does it's impossible to go back.

I was planning to buy the GH3 (I'm GH1 and GH2 owner), and forgot it as soon as I laid my eyes on the BMCC image. Yes I'm aware of all the drawbacks but none of them surpasses that final image output when this is a priority for your work.

I would not trade the BMCC even for a C100!!! So I certainly would not consider buying a 2/3000USD Canon without a RAW codec.

My question would be where would this fit, what can Canon drop from the C100 to make it cheaper, without just making it a 5D Mk3?
I hear a lot of people putting the C100 down, it's to expensive, it doesn't have X Y or Z feature. But I still see no other camera like it other than maybe the more expensive FS700 so I am not sure what people are complaining about.
I am hoping to rent a C100 soon and hope to be as impressed in person as I am by what I have seen and read.

I never understood why would anyone shoot a movie with a DSLR. Yeah I have several of them but it just not worth the hassle when I want to shoot video and I shoot it with a vid-cam. As for BM images, I have not seen any that is better than a $3K Canon XF100 for example. Am much more interested in the story telling than all those tech things everyone is in love with. Am sure a lot of you will pound on me for saying all this, but ya know... the public could care less if you shoot it with a $3K or a 300K camera. They want to enjoy a GOOD story told on the screen. All you have to do is look at the bombs Hollywood makes for millions of dollars, so they are not impressed with gorgeous images and so on. Something to think about.

Get your FREE copy of the eBook called "astonishingly detailed and useful" by Filmmaker Magazine!
It's 100+ pages on what you need to know to make beautiful, inexpensive movies using a DSLR. Subscribe to receive the free PDF!